Is There Ever A Negative Gun Review?

[jyl]

I was browsing magazines at the grocery store. Hmm, maybe I'll see what's up with guns. It feels like time to buy a new gun.

There are eight gun titles. They all have some combination of one or more of these objects on the cover: a black AR, a black 1911, a black machine pistol.

Similarly, the titles are all permutations of the Five Holy Words. "Concealed. Combat. Handgun. Special. 1911."

Leafing through these magazines, I quickly got bored with the endless variations on the "custom combat 1911" and "pocket carry BUG", and started looking for something actually new and different.

That was thin pickings. There was a polymer framed 1911 from RRA. Barely lighter than a standard steel-framed single stack, fatter grip, and indistinguishable to look or touch. Must have been a point to this, but I missed it. There was a S&W revolver with a Weight Under The Barrel ! ! ! That seemed radical, yup.

Then I came across a brand new gun make. The "Caracal", made in the UAE. The basic gun looks like any other striker fired polymer framed Glock/SR9/M&P clone. But the sights are really different, front and rear sight both up at the barrel end of the slide. They are not adjustable - note that point.

Read the test. Seems okay. Then I come across this.

"During my accuracy testing, I observed that the point of impact varied widely (from 3 inches low to 5 inches high) depending on the ammo used. Much of this dispersion was vertical, so I believe it was primarily due to the varying velocities of the projectiles."

The rest of the review showed that the accuracy testing was 25 yards benchrested, that the mean velocity of the different ammunition ranged from 984 to 1213 fps, and that the typical group measured 4 inches in diameter. And, again, the different groups were strung out vertically over an 8 inch range.

The analysis is left up to the reader. (Hint: calculate the bullet drop over 25 yd due to a 229 fps difference in muzzle velocity and assess the validity of the reviewer's excuse.)


The review concludes: "Is the Caracal shootable? Yes. Would I carry one? Yes."

And I concluded:
1. There is something quite wrong with this gun.
2. The writer is a gun-whore who will carry anything.
3. It is not possible to make a gun bad enough to get a negative review in the mainstream gun press.

Oh well, my search for My Next Gun continues.

[JAR0023]

Try "Gun Test". Small little black and white rag. Subscription on is about the only way to get it. Never seen it in a shop.

Very low budget and they buy all their test subjects retail. They typically pull no punches. They give plenty of failing grades.

J

[Jeff Higgins]

What are you looking for? What would be different enough to strike your fancy? Give us something to work with, and I bet with the broad range of shooting experience on this board we could come up with something.

And yeah, mainstream gun rags - worse than useless anymore. Ever notice most have an advertisement for the test gun on the page either preceding or following the article?

The only gun mags I get anymore that could be even remotely considered "mainstream" are the Rifle and Handloader series. They are both published six times per year, alternating months. They have what I consider to be the most knowledgeable, honest staff with the widest range of expertise and interests in the business. A guy has to be at it a long, long time, and has to have built quite a name for himself in shooting circles to make the grade with these guys. And they pretty much ignore the trendy fads - "tactical" guns, flashlights, underwear, and whatnot have no place with these guys.

The NRA technical staff still give honest reviews as well. I can hardly stand to read The American Rifleman anymore for all its "the sky is falling" political rhetoric (all aimed at frothing the membership up into a donating frenzy), but the technical articles remain quite good.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

The NRA technical staff still give honest reviews as well. I can hardly stand to read The American Rifleman anymore for all its "the sky is falling" political rhetoric (all aimed at frothing the membership up into a donating frenzy), but the technical articles remain quite good.

I concur with this. I skip the political BS. Not gonna change my vote or up my donations. The tech. stuff is pretty good and there are some good feature stories on historical guns used in battles. Other than that, I can't remember the last time I bought a gun mag. I'd honestly do it for the ads before the articles, just to see what's new out there.

[jyl]

Guns that are interesting me - here is a list, off the top of my head, not really any rhyme or reason to this so I'm not sure how to decide, but your thoughts would be welcome . . .

- full on Olympic target pistol. Anatomical grip, .22, 2 lb trigger, maybe optical sight. A Hammerli, Benelli, Walther, etc.

- a Mauser 1896 broom handle. With the stock/holster. Gotta be a shooter, not a display only piece.

- the zootiest 1911 I can find. Not one of the xerox copy "custom combat" 1911s in the magazines. I am thinking something like an Infinity SVI race gun.

- send my old Luger to a gunsmith and have him make me a "race P08" if you can imagine such a thing. Bull barrel, worked trigger, target sights. Actually the trigger was worked and the feed ramp polished by a long-dead smith in LA 25 years ago, really just need the barrel (and the broken extractor fixed).

- send my Detonics CombatMaster off to someone who can get it really reliable and add some decent night sights. I don't know any good gunsmiths, and Detonics is no longer around (in any incarnation).

- an alloy framed Colt Commander

- a bike gun . . . what's that? A gun to carry while riding, of course! Has to be sweat resistant, fit in a jersey pocket, as light as possible, and for a pocket gun I do like revolvers. So I'm thinking snubby, scandium, titanium, polished like a Campy crank, lots of drillium, Cinelli cork grips, ammo with aluminum cases (saves weight) and hollowpoint bullets (saves more weight).



-

[varmint]

i have a red nine mauser broomhandle. relined barrel. pretty rough shape. but a surprisingly good shooter. at first it would send spent shells flying directly at my forehead. swapped out the extractor and solved that problem. the other thing that went wrong was the sear. just got old and kept slipping out of place.

found that at the big socal gun shows look for the really old dealers. every other one had a cigar box full of parts. never the specific one you are looking for. but always good to stock up. don't trust sarco. i don't know what they sold me. but they weren't mauser springs.

the insides are a rubiks cube of interlocking metal bits. i was probably the first one to do a detailed disassembly of the thing since the thirties. took hours. but there is a logic to the way it goes together.

the thing has rifle sights. graduated up to a very optimistic 800 yards. not very easy to aim like a pistol. got the shoulder stock on and it made a lot more sense. was hitting the metal plates at 100 yards easily.

not the weapon to take on a bank robbery. ultimately it's more about the cool factor and having something to tinker with than shooting. but still damn fun.





i'm not in the market for another one. but if i was buying today i'd look for a 1930 or so with the detachable mag. using the stripper clips just got tiresome.

[James Brown]

well i have a AMT government 1911 and everyone bashes the crap out of them. I love it, it works and 100% stainless steel. Few mods but feeds everything i buy for it. Not a Kimber but a worker.

[varmint]

i would only read the british motorcycle magazines. the american ones were just glossy press releases. imagine the same thing happens with gun mags.